Document Sample
					                               PRIVATE VOLUNTEERING DISADVANTAGE

This word document was downloaded from the website:, please remain this
                         link information when you reproduce , copy, or use it.
                     <a href=''>word documents</a>

volunteering tradeoff 1nc shell .................................................................................................................................. 1-4
uniqueness: federal support of national service decreasing ..........................................................................................4
uniqueness: private volunteerism high now...................................................................................................................5
volunteering tradeoff links: national service.............................................................................................................. 6-9
volunteering tradeoff links: peace corps .................................................................................................................. 9-11
volunteering tradeoff links: americorps ....................................................................................................................... 11
at: no link—the plan is voluntary ................................................................................................................................ 12
impact: national service increases totalitarianism .................................................................................................. 13-16

Affirmative answers
affirmative answers: private volunteerism tradeoff ............................................................................................... 16-18
affirmative answers to totalitarianism impacts ............................................................................................................ 18
affirmative answers: private volunteering tradeoff—americorps specific ............................................................. 19-21
                         VOLUNTEERING TRADEOFF 1NC SHELL

Winter, 04 (Bill, Libertarian Party News editor, Libertarian Party News, 2/22, “Libertarian Solutions: What's
wrong with national service”,

4) They are not needed.
Politicians promoting national service schemes suggest there is a lack of volunteers in America. They couldn't be
more wrong. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 63.8 million Americans did some kind of volunteer work
in 2003. That's 28.8% of the nation's population. An earlier Gallup poll put the number even higher. It found that
48% of Americans volunteer every year, contributing over 19.5 billion hours of annual volunteer time. In addition,
more than three-quarters of American households donate to charity, according to the Cato Institute. As past LP
Executive Director Steve Dasbach said in a 1997 LP press release: "Politicians can't grasp the notion that Americans
don't need to be bribed or blackmailed into volunteering."

Bandow, 96 (Doug, senior fellow at CATO, Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
Oversight Hearing, On the Corporation for National Service and Community Service, May 21,

Americans have worked in their communities since the nation's founding and opportunities for similar kinds of
service today abound. Businesses, churches, and schools all actively help organize their members' efforts. In a cover
story Newsweek reported that "many of the old stereotypes are gone. Forget the garden club: today working women
are more likely than housewives to give time to good works, and many organizations are creating night and weekend
programs for the busy schedules of dual-paycheck couples. Men, too, are volunteering almost as often as women."
Much more could be done, of course. But what makes service in America so vital is that it is decentralized, privately
organized, centered around perceived needs, and an outgrowth of people's sense of duty and compassion. A federal
"service" program, especially if it expands over time, risks teaching that the duty of giving, and the job of organizing
giving (deciding who is worthy to receive government grants and, indirectly, private groups' services) belongs to
government rather than average people throughout society. This is, in fact, the explicit goal of advocates of
mandatory service programs, who would create a duty to the state rather than the supposed beneficiaries of service.
But even a program such as the present one, given the government's dominant role in society and ability to shape
private behavior to conform with its wishes (in order to receive public funds, in this case), risks perverting America's
traditional volunteer ethic. At some point service to society could become widely equated with work for
government. Shared Fears Some participants in voluntary organizations share this fear. David King of the Ohio-
West Virginia YMCA has warned: "The national service movement and the National Corporation are not about
encouraging volunteering or community service. The national service movement is about institutionalizing federal
funding for national and community service. It is about changing the language and understanding of service to
eliminate the words 'volunteer' and 'community service' and in their place implant the idea that service is something
paid for by the government." This distinction is important for the server, the person being served, and society. In
particular, projects that involve the greatest interpersonal contact, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters and other work
with "at risk" youth, are better implemented by volunteers who give sacrificially than by workers who are paid for
their efforts. The latter may be dedicated, but their commitment is likely to be more limited. Indeed, a different kind
of relationship is likely to develop if the supposed beneficiary realizes that the helper is motivated by a desire to give
and not to earn a paycheck or educational voucher.
                         VOLUNTEERING TRADEOFF 1NC SHELL

Walters, 96 (John, president of the New Citizenship Project, Policy Review, Jan-Feb,

The president's ill-fated defense of the school-lunch program, moreover, exposed his shallow commitment to
returning power, responsibility, and resources to local officials. If we are truly to revitalize citizenship, Americans
must be allowed to take more responsibility for public safety, education, and assistance to the poor. And restoring
this responsibility to citizens and communities will almost certainly produce many different paths to sustaining
healthy family and community life and to helping the disadvantaged. With such efforts, the bureaucratic state's
platform of regulatory and entitlement-based equity will be broken. Individual and community choices will have
much greater responsibility for the lives of citizens. Circumstances will not be better everywhere, but they will be
better where citizens work to make them better. President Clinton's communitarian-inspired vision lacks a credible
model for rebuilding America's communities and voluntary associations. These institutions have been weakened by
overreaching government and the deeply rooted liberal dogmas that created and sustain such government. Citizen
apathy -- and citizen anger -- are the result, not the cause, of these forces. To revitalize citizenship, Americans
should forge a consensus on a new separation of powers - - getting the federal government and even large state and
local bureaucracies out of those areas of public life that citizens can and should direct themselves. The Clinton
administration has failed to distinguish between the problems that Americans are responsible for solving as
individuals and those, far more limited in scope, that properly involve government. By restoring authority and
resources to citizens and the institutions they control directly, we will also restore the central place of middle-class
values in our community and political life. The Clinton administration's use of federal resources to promote
voluntarism and its unwillingness to trust states, localities, and parents in the fight over school lunches reflect a
larger problem: the inability of welfare-state liberalism to recognize its proper limits. More than 150 years ago,
Alexis de Tocqueville noted: "Local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put it within
the people's reach; they teach people to appreciate its peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of it.
Without local institutions, a nation may give itself a free government, but it does not have the spirit of liberty."
                               VOLUNTEERING TRADEOFF 1NC SHELL
Epstein, 02 (Alex, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, regular contributor to The Intellectual Activist, and
former Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of The Duke Review, Capitalism Magazine, 2/4,

Though he has pledged to defend America's freedom against terrorists, President Bush, in his State of the Union address, gave his unequivocal
support to a different threat against our way of life: the "national service" movement.
Adding his voice to the chorus of intellectuals and politicians who have pushed for a commitment by Americans to "national service," Bush
called on "every American to commit at least two years, four thousand hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and
your nation." Supplementing this call, he proposed a dramatic expansion of existing government service programs: a
doubling of the Peace Corps--with an emphasis on expanding service to Islamic countries--and a quintupling of the
AmeriCorps program, which sponsors volunteers for charitable activities like building houses for the homeless and caring for the elderly.
Bush's proposal closely mirrors Senator John McCain and Evan Bayh's recently-introduced Call to Service Act. Why must Americans give up
two years of their lives to change bedpans at nursing homes or teach children in Afghanistan? Because national service is a moral duty,
its advocates claim, and the government should teach us that it is an integral part of American citizenship. Robin
Gerber, a Professor of Leadership at the University of Maryland, writes: "Young Americans should be told they have an obligation to serve, a
duty to actively support their democracy." "We need to convey this expectation, that everyone should expect to give something back to their
country," says Leslie Lenkowsky, President Bush's appointee to head the Corporation for National Service. Conservative writer David Brooks
praises national-service legislation because it "takes kids out of the normal self-obsessed world of career and consumption and orients them
toward service and citizenship." Brooks favors military-related national service, because under it, "Today's children . . . would suddenly face drill
sergeants reminding them they are nothing without the group." This collectivist belief in the supremacy of the group over the
individual is the foundation of the national-service ideology, which regards the individual as a servant to the nation.
And the proponents of "duty" to the state, although they claim to be patriots, are espousing a view that is fundamentally un-American. America
was founded on the principle of individualism: the idea that each individual is a sovereign being with the moral right to his own life and to the
achievement of his own goals. This is the basis of the political idea, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that the individual possesses
inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. American individualism and freedom are incompatible with the
notion that people are servants who owe their lives--or any portion of them--to the state. (Fire fighters and
policemen are not "servants" of the public--any more than are doctors or lawyers; rather, they are free individuals,
who have chosen for their careers potentially dangerous work, and who expect to be paid accordingly.) The logical
end-road of the belief that you have a duty to serve the nation is legislation that forces you to do so--i.e., compulsory
national service. Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution has proposed that every 18-year-old be forced to perform
one year of compulsory service. This is nothing less than involuntary servitude of the youth of "the land of the free."
While President Bush claims to be in favor only of voluntary service, his and other proposals are a step in the
direction of mandatory service. McCain and Bayh write that "national service should one day be a rite of passage for
young Americans." There is only one way to make national service a "rite of passage"--by government coercion.
McCain has long-favored compulsory national service, but laments that it "is not currently politically practical."
Accepting the premise that service is a duty, Bush and others who now claim service should be voluntary will be
morally powerless against future bills that seek to make it mandatory. Every totalitarian society in history has rested
on the premise of man's alleged duty to the state. It was Adolf Hitler, for example, who preached that "the higher interests involved in
the life of the whole must set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." The attacks of September 11 should remind
Americans of what makes our country great--its proud devotion to individualism and freedom. To defend America, we must embrace not the
subjugation of the individual to "national service," but his sovereign right to the pursuit of his own happiness.

Jensen and Schwinn, 06 (Brennen and Elizabeth, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2/23, lexis)

The $2.8-trillion budget proposal that Mr. Bush sent to Congress this month would seek to stimulate charitable
giving through an array of tax incentives, but it would also cut many federal programs of interest to nonprofit
organizations. The president's request covers spending in the 2007 fiscal year, which begins October 1. Mr. Bush
singled out 141 programs for elimination or steep cuts, a move he said would save the government nearly $15-
billion. Among the programs that would be eliminated under the president's plan are those that subsidize vocational,
arts, and technology education, as well as a program that provides meals to roughly 400,000 needy elderly people.
The White House would consolidate several programs to improve rundown neighborhoods into the Community
Development Block Grant program, and reduce funds for that program. The administration also seeks to reduce the
amount that hospitals receive from the Medicare program for the elderly. Mr. Bush said such changes were needed
to make money available for the government's fight against terrorism and to hold down the growth of the federal
deficit, which is projected this year to reach $423-billion. Many of the programs are wasteful or duplicate other
government efforts, he said. In the past, charities benefited from the opposition of Congress to many of
administration's suggested cuts. But budget experts say the political landscape has changed in recent years as
Congress sets limits on its own spending, as it did in 2005 and 2004. Such limits have resulted in across-the-board
cuts in federal programs, according to Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, a Washington research group that studies the impact of fiscal policies. And they have put increasing
pressure on programs that lack strong advocates. Last year lawmakers shrank or abolished 89 of the 154 programs
that Mr. Bush had proposed for reduction or elimination.

Jensen and Schwinn, 06 (Brennen and Elizabeth, “Bush's Proposed Budget Could Hit Charities Hard” The
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2/23, lexis)

Volunteerism. Among the measures aimed at increasing the time and money that Americans give to charities, the
president asked for an increase of $16-million for the Peace Corps in 2007, to $341-million. Other programs did not
fare as well. The Corporation for National and Community Service would be cut by nearly $50-million, and the
National Civilian Community Corps, which sends teams of workers to help localities fight fires, clean up after
hurricanes, and conduct other public-service projects, would be eliminated. AmeriCorps, the national community-
service program, would receive $5.9-million less in grant money in 2007.

O’Beirne, 02 (Kate, National Review, 2/25, questia)

AmeriCorps is a misguided response . . . to a nonexistent problem: Even before Sept. 11, the citizenry was plenty
active, without Washington's help. According to the most recent survey by the Independent Sector, a coalition of
volunteer groups, in 2000, 44 percent of adults -- an estimated 84 million people -- volunteered with a formal
organization, for an average of 3.6 hours a week (per volunteer). Charity closer to home, not included in the survey,
would have included additional millions who are caring for an aging family member, babysitting for a relative, or
helping a sick friend. An effort like the first President Bush's much-ridiculed "Thousand Points of Light" -- a simple
call to service, and a celebration of those who answer -- could likely mobilize more volunteers than the hundreds of
millions of dollars in federal grants that fund paid volunteers to piggyback on well-established local programs. In
one of its glossy brochures, the Corporation for National and Community Service points out that AmeriCorps' troops
typically serve with organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and Boys and Girls Clubs.
Former GOP congressional aide Derrick Max, who studied the program during his stint in the House, found that
cost-shifting wasn't uncommon, with an AmeriCorps worker sometimes replacing one of a community group's
salaried employees. Even though there's no shortage of volunteers, and no evident need for federal intervention
between citizens and community groups, the current administration plans to create this new Citizens Corps, under
the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The corps will engage volunteers in homeland-
security efforts by assessing possible terrorist threats (the Neighborhood Watch program is doubled) and helping
local law enforcement. There is also an export component to this new push: The administration wants to double the
number of Peace Corps workers over the next five years, to match the program's historic high of 15,000 in 1966.
Conservative activist Grover Norquist spots a fundamental contradiction in an administration committed to faith-
based initiatives showing such enthusiasm for these secular do-gooders: "It always seemed to me that the Peace
Corps secularized the missionary spirit that encouraged Americans to serve overseas."
Spalding, 03 (Matthew, Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation,
“Principles and Reforms for Citizen Service”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1642, 4/1,

The government-oriented view of national service contrasts sharply with the idea of a "citizen service" that protects
and strengthens civil society, focuses on service rather than social change, promotes true volunteerism, and
addresses real problems--while minimizing the role of government. The following five principles of citizen service
should be at the heart of the Citizen Service Act.
PRINCIPLE #1: Protect and strengthen civil society
The primary goal of citizen service should be to protect and strengthen civil society, especially the non-
governmental institutions at its foundation. The great social commentator Alexis de Tocqueville observed that one of the leading
virtues of American society is its tendency to create local voluntary associations to meet society's most important needs. In other nations, these
needs were addressed through and by government; in the United States, private individuals of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions formed
associations to deal with societal problems. "I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a
common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance it freely," Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America. "What political
power could ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the
aid of an association?"3 The traditional associations of civil society--families, schools, churches, voluntary organizations,
and other mediating institutions--sustain social order and public morality, moderate individualism and materialism,
and cultivate the personal character that is the foundation of a self-governing society. All of this occurs without the
aid of government bureaucracies or the coercive power of the law. Unlike government programs, the personal
involvement, individual generosity, and consistent participation that are the hallmarks of private philanthropy have a
ripple effect of further strengthening the fiber of civil society. Policymakers must recognize that President Bush's
call to service will be answered best not by a government program but by the selfless acts of millions of citizens in
voluntary associations, local communities, and private organizations that are at the heart of American charity. In
2001, according to Independent Sector and the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, 83.9 million adults
volunteered time to a formal charity organization and 89 percent of American households gave a total of $212
billion to charity.4 That same year, the Knights of Columbus alone raised and distributed $125.6 million (half the AmeriCorps budget) and
volunteered 58 million hours of service (almost 90 percent of AmeriCorps participants' service time). 5 These private voluntary
organizations thrive today precisely because their work is privately organized, highly decentralized, and directly
focused on community needs and local conditions. If policymakers are serious about promoting a thriving civil society, they should emphasize
not only volunteering, but also private philanthropy by promoting proposals such as the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would boost
both private volunteerism and charitable giving.6
PRINCIPLE #2: Focus on service
Americans have always exemplified a strong sense of civic responsibility and humane compassion toward their neighbors and the less fortunate in their communities
and traditionally have supported and participated in a vast array of private service activities. The objective of citizen service legislation should be to promote a
renewed commitment to this great tradition of individual service as a way of strengthening the natural grounds of citizenship and civic friendship. As Tocqueville
noted, "Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another."7 The
goal of an authentic citizen service initiative should not be to engage citizens in a government program, nor to create an artificial bond between individuals and the
state or organization that coordinates their service, but to energize a culture of personal compassion and civic commitment to those in need of service. Citizen service
should not be a tool for an educational reform agenda, a platform for political or social activism, or a method of reinventing government. A true citizen service
initiative should recognize and support the dynamic and diverse nature of civil society: It should not promote one particular form of service or suggest that public
service in a national, government-sponsored program is in any way better or more dignified than traditional, and nongovernmental, forms of community service.
PRINCIPLE #3: Promote true volunteerism
                                                                                                       be truly voluntary,
President Bush's first objective for a Citizen Service Act is to "support and encourage greater engagement of citizens in volunteering."8 To
an action must be intentionally chosen and done by one's own free will, without compulsion or external constraint
and "without profit, payment or any valuable consideration."9 It is this altruistic process by which individuals
choose--without coercion or economic benefit--to help others that has the character-forming effect of habituating
and strengthening citizens' sense of duty to help their neighbors. By contrast, "volunteerism" that is paid for and
organized by the government belittles authentic volunteerism both by presenting service as an employment option
rather than as the sacrificial giving of one's time and resources and by implying that money and guidance from the
government is necessary if Americans are to help their neighbors. "Dependence," Thomas Jefferson noted, "begets subservience
and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." 10 Reform of the national service laws should
redesign service programs as an opportunity for true voluntary service rather than a federal jobs program. 11
Bandow, 96 (Doug, senior fellow at CATO, Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
Oversight Hearing, On the Corporation for National Service and Community Service, May 21,

In fact, there are good reasons why many tasks that are not performed today are not performed, a fact ignored by
national service advocates. But the availability of federal money will usually create a pressing "need." A similar
problem of perverse incentives has been evident in federal grant programs which allow states to use national money
for projects without much local contribution. Observes David Luberoff, of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government, "One of the lessons of the interstate project is that in general ... if you don't require that states put up a
reasonable amount of the cost, you run the risk of building stuff that is probably not that cost-effective."
Real volunteerism, in contrast, works because the recipient organization needs to offer valuable enough work to
attract well-motivated volunteers. But Corporation personnel may be more interested in working off a school debt
than "serving," and especially than serving in their particular position. In fact, the government risks subverting the
volunteer spirit by paying participants too much. AmeriCorps members receive benefits of roughly $13,000--
actually a bit higher in effect, since the educational voucher and other fringe benefits are not taxed. And some
AmeriCorps personnel have ended up with more: those at the Department of Agriculture earned more than $17,000
in annual benefits. As a result, "service" is a better financial deal than many entry-level jobs. (Unit Leaders and
Assistant Unit Leaders may even receive overtime pay, which seems rather incongruous for a "volunteer" program.)
Thus, as discussions with participants indicate, some students see national service as a financially remunerative job
option, not a unique opportunity to help the community. Indeed, much of the President's pitch during the campaign
was framed in terms of naked self-interest: earning credit towards college tuition.

Walters, 96 (John, president of the New Citizenship Project, Policy Review, Jan-Feb,

AmeriCorps reveals the administration's fundamental misreading of the components of healthy citizenship. The
program provides government subsidies for voluntary activity at the federal, state, and local levels. By so doing, it
conflates volunteering -- which nearly 90 million Americans regularly do -- with a federal-government jobs program
run by a centralized bureaucracy. It is, in essence, a Great Society-style program trying to pass as a plan to
reinvigorate citizenship and heal communities. But its very premise -- using federal resources to promote
voluntarism -- contradicts the principle of self-government that lies at the heart of citizenship. AmeriCorps blurs the
line between the problems and needs best addressed by individuals, voluntary association and localities and those
best addressed by the federal government. Instead, it seems to suggest that social problems are the responsibility of
the central government, and the federal bureaucracy must direct and improve local solutions.

Winter, 04 (Bill, Libertarian Party News editor, Libertarian Party News, 2/22, “Libertarian Solutions: What's
wrong with national service”,

2) They get government more involved in private charities.
Like President Bush's plan to give federal money to religious charities, programs like the USA Freedom Corps have
a damaging effect on philanthropic groups. As Michael Tanner wrote in Cato Briefing Paper No. 62 (March 22,
2001) mixing government and charity could "undermine the very things that have made private charity so effective."
For example, he said, increased government involvement could leave private organizations "overwhelmed with
paperwork and subject to a host of federal regulations," could leave groups increasingly dependent on government
money and government-funded volunteers, and could politicize what should be compassionate or religious
decisions. "Most important," wrote Tanner, "the whole idea of charity could become subtly corrupted; the difference
between the welfare state and true charity could be blurred."
Spalding, 03 (Matthew, Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation,
“Principles and Reforms for Citizen Service”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1642, 4/1,

PRINCIPLE #5: Minimize the role of government
Any expanded government role in the voluntary sector is unwise and counterproductive. "The more [government]
puts itself in the place of associations," Tocqueville argued, "the more particular persons, losing the idea of
associating with each other, will need it to come to their aid: these are causes and effects that generate each other
without rest. Will the public administration in the end direct all the industries for which an isolated citizen cannot
suffice?"25 Citizen service that is paid for and organized by the government encourages individuals and associations
to look to the state for assistance. Likewise, the government's funding of charitable organizations to pay for
volunteer time reduces the need for private-sector support, making it more likely that citizens will abdicate their
civic responsibilities. Institutionalized federal funding and government administration also will have the effect of
further reshaping the voluntary sector, as public money and oversight inevitably pushes aside private philanthropy
and sets the stage for increased lobbying and public advocacy. The long-term effect would be to shift the center of
gravity within the volunteer community from civil society to the public sector. There already exists between
government and many large nonprofit organizations what Leslie Lenkowsky has called a "dysfunctional marriage,"
in which government money has led to a significant loss of nonprofit independence. "The partnership has been a
Faustian bargain that ought to be reexamined and renegotiated," Lenkowsky concluded.26 Expanding this
relationship to include the voluntary sector generally, and especially those smaller organizations that have thus far
eluded the federal reach, would only expand and intensify the problem. Reform should reduce government's
financial, administrative, and regulatory role in civil society. Government can play an important role in revitalizing
citizen service, but that role, of necessity, will be limited and indirect. Policymakers must keep in mind that
government can best promote civil service not by creating any particular service programs (given that there is a vast
network of private service activities that exist without government oversight or subsidies), but by launching a high-
level bully-pulpit initiative to encourage, motivate, and honor the efforts of private citizens.
Waldorf –Former Peace Corps Volunteer and anthropologist– Winter 2001. (Saral, Public Interest. “My time in the
Peace Corps, Iss. 142; pg. 72, 11 pgs, proquest)

The Peace Corps training philosophy is part of the program's problem. Recruits submit to an eight- or ten-week training regimen that gives
excellent language instruction but otherwise relies on motivational and role-playing techniques and the workbook study of such topics as
development or beekeeping or community health. The belief is that if such selfdirected, experiential learning can turn out "skilled" volunteers,
then it can do the same for locals regardless of culture or degree of education. Much of the training is devoted to showing trainees how to use
these techniques to build incountry volunteer movements for Peace Corps programs. Sometimes the consequences of this "self-help" philosophy
are harmless. But from my various experiences they often are not. For instance, after succumbing to a lot of the "Barefoot Doctor"
philosophies of China and Cuba in the sixties and seventies, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other
international and national health agencies have done away with many disease-specific health programs such as
malaria eradication. Instead, they have tried to shift health responsibilities to volunteer-run "community health
councils" or "village health workers." Such councils and workers are expected, after a three-day to six-week workshop, to take over the health-
care management of their communities without pay, or, if that doesn't work (and it usually doesn't) for whatever compensation the community or
donors can come up with. ("Work for food" was one scheme where I was posted.) In Chitipa, Malawi, the outcome of this scheme was as
predictable as it would be if the United States, the world's greatest booster of volunteerism, tried to turn its public-
health system over to unpaid volunteers: noncompliance. For two years my counterparts and I tried to get our
district's chiefs, the district political officer, and other local elites to form a community AIDS council. But none of
these mostly professionally trained men and women, whose credentials had not come easy in their country, had any
interest in participating, especially since they would receive no pay, had no real expertise in AIDS work, and wouldn't receive
any real resources to do anything anyway. They also feared (rightly) that if they did form a council, they would receive all the criticism for its
failure to make improvements (and the failure rate of these community councils during my time was nearly 100 percent). These failures were
almost inevitable, since neither the government nor donors intended to fund the council or its work. A sense of civic
duty and volunteerism was to be the only motivation.

Reiffel, 05 (Lex, Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution,

Since the high-water mark for the Peace Corps in 1966, there have been two
divergent trends in overseas service by Americans:
• The number of Peace Corps volunteers in the field dropped sharply at the end of the 1960s, hovered around 6,000
during the 1970s, and remained below 5,000 for most of the 1980s before pushing slowly up to the September 2005
level of 7,810.
• The number of Americans performing volunteer service overseas in other programs grew rapidly from a number
in 1966 that was probably smaller than number of Peace Corps volunteers in the field at that time to a number today
that is a multiple of the number of Peace Corps volunteers and probably above 50,000.

Waldorf –Former Peace Corps Volunteer and anthropologist – Winter 2001. (Saral, Public Interest. “My time in
the Peace Corps, Iss. 142; pg. 72, 11 pgs, proquest)

Today, there are many Peace Corps spin-offs that allow for volunteering on a small scale. Each fall, USA Weekend
magazine holds its annual "Make A Difference Day" and features the "winners" in its pages. And in tune with the
American way of turning service into leisure, one can now pay to be a shortterm volunteer in, say, Ghana, by putting
down about $2,000 for a two-week "community-service village experience" offered by vacation outfits such as
Cross-Cultural Solutions, Global Volunteers, and even Elderhostel. And it's all tax-deductible.
    Rieffel and Zalud, 06 (Lex, visiting fellow in the Global Economy and Development Center at the Brookings
    Institution, and Sarah, independent consultant for the Global Economy and Development Center at the Brookings
    Institution, “International Volunteering: Smart Power”, June,
    International Volunteer Programs without U.S. Government Support

    A surprising number of programs beyond the Peace Corps provide opportunities to engage in volunteer work in
    foreign countries. They cover a wide range of thematic areas including basic health and sanitation, education,
    housing, and agriculture. For the purposes of this study we have divided them into four categories: generalist,
    professional, corporate, and faith-based. In round numbers, the annual participation in 52 programs surveyed in 2005
    was 38,500 volunteers.
            Generalist Programs select volunteers primarily on the basis of their commitment to overseas service and
    provide varying degrees of training. One of the largest programs in this category is EarthWatch Institute, which
    assigns volunteers to work with scientists engaged in research projects in foreign countries.
           Professional Programs attract skilled volunteers with substantial work experience. One of the best-known
    programs in this category is Doctors without Borders. The American Bar Association has a growing program
    drawing on the large pool of lawyers in the U.S.
            Corporate Programs may be the fastest growing category. A large number of multinational corporations
    now encourage their employees to engage in volunteer work in their local communities or in places where there is a
    high demand for their skills, including foreign countries. The General Electric Company's "Elfun" program began in
    1928. Pfizer's Global Health Fellows program supports employees in six-month assignments working with leading
    NGOs overseas.
             Faith-based Programs are linked to a specific religious faith, but programs that send volunteers abroad
    primarily to proselytize are excluded from this study. All of the programs included accept volunteers from any
    faiths. The largest single program without government support, Habitat for Humanity International, belongs in this
    category. Other examples are Catholic Relief Services, and the Presbyterian Hunger Program.

    Rieffel and Zalud, 06 (Lex, visiting fellow in the Global Economy and Development Center at the Brookings Institution, and Sarah,
    independent consultant for the Global Economy and Development Center at the Brookings Institution, “International Volunteering: Smart
    Power”, June,

    Raise public awareness. Too few Americans are aware of the opportunities for volunteer work overseas that exist
    beyond the Peace Corps. As the Baby Boom generation approaches retirement age, messages targeting this large
    pool of high quality applicants could be particularly effective.

    Rieffel 2003 (Lex, non resident Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, The Peace Corps in a Turbulent World,
    October 27,

    As wonderful as the Peace Corps may be, the task of achieving global stability and prosperity is obviously too big
    for the Peace Corps by itself. A broad range of hard and soft instruments will be required to meet the challenges of terrorism, nation building and poverty. Fortunately the
    United States is not alone in tackling terrorism, nation-building and poverty. Dozens of other countries have been working alongside us for decades. All of the developed democracies commit a
    larger share of their GDP to development assistance than the United States does, although the average is still less than one percent. A number of the more successful developing countries, such as
    China, India, and Mexico, have launched foreign aid programs. Half a dozen major specialized agencies of the United Nations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization,
    have vast experience and considerable capacity. Perhaps as many as twenty other countries have active government-supported
    programs of volunteers working at the grassroots level in developing countries. Indeed the first Peace Corps-type volunteer appears to be an
    Australian student sent to Indonesia in 1951.26 Altogether there may be as many as ten thousand volunteers in the field serving under
    these programs.
Weinstein and Stofferahn, 97 (Kenneth and August, Heritage Foundation, “Boost Volunteerism: End
Americorps,” 4/24,

Since President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal used the federal government to usurp the traditional role of
voluntary institutions, particularly in the social service area, the tradition of caring for the poor and needy in our own
neighborhoods -- and of taking responsibility for them -- has deteriorated almost to the vanishing point.
One program contributing to this deterioration is President Clinton's showcase program for promoting youth
volunteerism, AmeriCorps. As if to illustrate the degree to which the spirit of community service is dying in this
country, AmeriCorps pays its volunteers. This is the opposite of volunteerism. The irony of the volunteer summit
was that one of the major organizations behind it -- the Corporation for National Service -- is the $400 million
federally funded agency that oversees and pays for AmeriCorps. Instead of praising AmeriCorps, summit attendees
should have denounced it. AmeriCorps is the largest extension of the federal government in recent years -- and the
biggest federally funded program to "promote volunteerism" since the days of the New Deal. But AmeriCorps has
proven to be a failure even on its own terms. AmeriCorps grants federal funds to various organizations that, in turn,
pay "volunteers" a stipend; at the completion of their service, full-time participants are also eligible for a $4,725
voucher for educational expenses. When AmeriCorps was created, Congress was assured that cost per "volunteer"
would be under $18,000, that federal funds would leverage many times their value in private donations, that the
program would be a cost-effective way to help young people pay for college, and that 80 percent of participants
would complete the program. Instead, the program has become a case study as to why government should stay out
of the voluntary sector. A July 1995 audit by the government's accounting arm, the General Accounting Office
(GAO), showed that the average cost per AmeriCorps member ran from $26,000 to $32,000 -- nearly double the
expected cost. Although a second GAO audit of a sampling of 24 AmeriCorps projects, completed in February 1997,
did not seek to determine average cost per participant, it did find some equally disturbing trends:
* Nearly 40 percent of AmeriCorps' paid volunteers in GAO's sample dropped out of the program;
* AmeriCorps has failed to generate significant private-sector support. Instead, 83 percent of funding for the projects
GAO examined came directly from the taxpayers;
* Barely half of those who completed the programs sampled used their educational awards. Although these numbers
will certainly increase over the seven years that the awards can be redeemed, in some programs as few as 18 percent
of the education awards were used. This fact leads some critics to wonder whether AmeriCorps has become merely
another expensive federal jobs program;
* One AmeriCorps project, the Casa Verde Builders, cost more than $100,000 per "volunteer" who completed the
program. Other audited programs showed similar waste.
The independent accounting firm Arthur Andersen has twice examined AmeriCorps books, finding them to be
unauditable and incomplete -- grounds for criminal prosecution in the private sector. Most disturbing, a follow-up
study concluded that the program could not account for $38 million in federal funding.
Even a study of the program for the Independent Sector, a group that supports AmeriCorps, found that the presence
of AmeriCorps members created only a "3.5 percent increase in hours volunteered by genuine volunteers."
Yet, despite this record of mismanagement, President Clinton wants to increase spending for AmeriCorps to $546.5
million next year -- a figure equal to the amount of money the government receives in taxes from more than 2.5
million average working families. According to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, "It's an outrage that the president
proposes to increase spending for this program, which can't even pass an audit."
In short, AmeriCorps is neither an effective means for promoting volunteerism nor a cost-effective means to help
families pay for college. It's time to end this expensive boondoggle. If Congress and the Clinton administration truly
want to promote volunteerism in America, they should work to end AmeriCorps.
                              AT: NO LINK—THE PLAN IS VOLUNTARY
Bandow, 93 (Doug, senior fellow at CATO, “National Service: Utopias Revisited”, Cato Policy Analysis No. 190,

There is nothing compulsory about the Clinton proposal, but coercion could follow later. Proponents of a mandatory,
universal system, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), see voluntary programs as a helpful first step and would
undoubtedly press for mandatory service once national service became the law of the land. A move to compulsion, though
perhaps not very likely, is certainly possible. Consider the scenario in which national service leads to a draft as sketched by David R. Henderson,
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
National service attracts few kids from higher- income families. Its advocates then argue that the only way to get
broad participation across all income classes is to make national service compulsory. With the voluntary-service
network in place, and with an existing constituency of organizations that benefit from the artificially cheap labor, the
next step is compulsory service.(14)

Grigg, 97 (William, “Service or Slavery?”, The New American, July 21,

The concept of "citizen-servant" was also a key tenet of the National Socialist version of collectivism. In a 1933 speech,
Hitler insisted that "the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the
individual." According to Hitler, the noblest German attribute was a quality called pflichterfulling or "fulfillment of
duty": "It means not to be self-sufficient, but to serve the community." One favored Nazi slogan was "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz!" ("The
common interest before self!") Nazi author Friedrich Sieburg offered this summary of the Nazi ethos: "There are no more private Germans; each
is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in this service." Like Clinton's Americorps
and Lenin's Young Communist League, the Hitler Youth were to serve as missionaries for the collectivist state.
"This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its
own upbringing," Hitler announced in a May 1, 1937 speech. Hitler had earlier acknowledged that indoctrinating
Germany's youth in his preferred version of collectivism was one of his chief ambitions. "When an opponent says, 'I will
not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already,'" Hitler declared in a speech on November 6, 1933. "What are you?
You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
The dramatic growth of the Hitler Youth illustrates how quickly such a movement can metastasize. In 1932, the last year
of the Weimar Republic, the Hitler Youth numbered a mere 107,956 in comparison to the more than ten million German youth involved in non-
political associations (such as the Boy Scouts). By 1938 -- five years after the Nazi party's ascent to power -- the ranks of the Hitler Youth had
swollen to 7,728,259. In 1939 Hitler made membership in the organization mandatory by enacting a law conscripting all German youngsters into
it. Notes leftist historian William Shirer, "Recalcitrant parents were warned that their children would be taken from them and put into orphanages
or other homes unless they enrolled" in the Hitler Youth program.
"Voluntary" Servitude
In similar fashion, the Clinton Administration's relatively modest national service initiatives are the harbinger of
compulsory universal service. "All the people I know who are driving for a form of national service, primarily want it to be compulsory,"
warned Martin Anderson of the Hoover Institution in the November 29, 1992 Boston Globe. "They realize that's a terrible problem politically, so
they're not willing to say it. It is endangerment of freedom and the potential for indoctrination that skeptics do not like in the national service
concept. However benign the program, some think it will not succeed on any meaningful scale unless it is
compulsory." One of the most forthright advocates of compelled "volunteerism" is Scott Shuger, a consultant to the federal government on
National Service. Shuger recommends that the federal government "make national service mandatory and assign the Selective Service System the
task of locating 18-year-olds and matching them with national service slots." Writing in the January 1996 issue of The Washington Monthly,
Shuger insisted that a program of domestic conscription "could be putting the vast unused talents and energies of our citizens, especially those
between age 15 and 30, to work systematically on our country's most pressing social needs -- in schools, daycare centers, environmental projects,
hospitals, drug clinics, nursing homes, the criminal justice system, and so on." Of course, with the state and not the citizen-servant deciding what
qualifies as service, this litany of "pressing social needs" most assuredly would not include peaceful pro-life sidewalk counseling or protecting
private property rights. Shuger also maintains that "having organized service programs in which mostly young people of all racial, ethnic, and
economic groups work side by side for a clear, common purpose would help overcome the very un-American barriers that have sprung up
between these groups in the past generation." While social engineers like Shuger might be enchanted with the prospect of a national program to
conscript the "talents and energies of our citizens" to serve a state-defined "common purpose," Americans who cherish individual
freedom and retain some understanding of the proper role of government must do our nation the service of resisting
compulsory "volunteerism."
Mayer, 99 (David, faculty advisor for the Federalist Society and professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law,

 Morally, the essential flaw in Clinton's war on Yugoslavia is the principle of altruism that underlies it. By
"altruism," I mean the moral code that asserts that people should sacrifice their own happiness or well-being to the
happiness or well-being of others; the moral code that preaches that self-interest is bad but that self-sacrifice is
noble, that the proper ethical posture of human beings is that of sacrificial animals to the supposed "good" of
society, or some other collective. This moral code of altruism is a very old, traditional moral code which has been
responsible for virtually all the evil, all the suffering, that has occurred throughout human history. It is the same
moral code which underlies the atrocities being committed in Kosovo itself, where people on both sides of the ethnic
conflict (both Serbian and Albanian) ignore the rights of individuals and instead regard people as significant only as
members of a collective (in this case, an ethnic group). Tyrants throughout human history have justified their
tyranny by appealing to some form of collectivism. The pharoahs of ancient Egypt, the emperors of Imperial Rome,
the kings of medieval Europe, all called upon their people to sacrifice their individual well-being to that of the
collective; and their accomplices were the priests, who appealed to superstition and mysticism -- the supposed will
of the one or more gods -- to convince the people that it was a "sin" not to sacrifice their well-being to the thugs who
ran the government. In more recent times, totalitarian dictators on both the "left" and "right"-- Lenin, Stalin, or
Mao, as well as Hitler, Mussolini, or Peron -- similarly have preached that the individual is nothing, that the
collective is everything. They too have been supported by priests, of sorts, namely the so-called "intellectuals" who
preach either a sectarian or secular form of civic religion which also condemned as sinful the individual's pursuit of
his own happiness or self-interest and which preached a "duty" to serve the state. As F. A. Hayek has shown in his
classic book by the same name, "The Road to Serfdom" has taken many paths in the 20th century. The call for
"national service" which Bill Clinton and like-minded collectivists (again, both on the left and the right) made at the
so-called "Presidents' Conference on America's Future," which took place in Philadelphia two years ago, in late
April 1997, differs from the philosophy of other 20th-century totalitarians only in degree, not in kind (as the
accompanying collection of quotations illustrate). The principle of altruism makes bad policy, whether in domestic
law or in foreign relations. In domestic law, it has made possible the so-called "welfare state" and all the problems
associated with it -- not only economically but socially and morally -- as David Kelley ably shows in his excellent
new book, A Life of One's Own. In foreign relations, it has made possible a series of wars in the 20th century,
beginning with World War I (and Woodrow Wilson's campaign to "make the world safe for democracy"), in which
young Americans were told it was their duty to sacrifice their lives not for their own country's freedom or security
but for some fancy of the foreign-policy wonks who advise the President. It's time that those of us who truly
"support our troops" -- those of us who believe that the lives of young Americans are too precious to waste on the
follies of presidential advisers -- show our support for them by calling for the immediate end of this stupid, wrong,
and unconstitutional war. 


Witte, 98 (Daniel, 1998 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 741, lexis)

Clinton views the Corps as an organic and growing means by which he can perpetuate his political vision and
influence far beyond the confines of his own stay in the Presidential office. 172 [*779] However, some judges have
noticed that "'an essential element in maintaining a system of limited government'" against authoritarianism is to
prevent the kind of "'massive state involvement with mediating institutions that would invest the capacity to
influence powerfully, through socialization, the future outcomes of... political processes.'" 173 Some "ideas touching
the relation [*780] between individual and state [are]...wholly different from those upon which our institutions
rest," and the Supreme Court has noted there are some systems of social order that no legislative body could impose
upon the people "without doing violence to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution." 174 Oddly, legal scholars
and judges have paid little attention to the fact that the Supreme Court's analysis seems to have substantial support in
the position of the Framers themselves; it is clear from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James
Madison that the Framers (1) were familiar with the Platonic model for social order and (2) rejected that model
because they considered it odious and irreconcilable with the United States constitutional system of ordered liberty
based upon their own presuppositions. 175 [*782] Left to themselves, "individuals tend to choose activities
congruent with salient aspects of their identities, and they support the institutions embodying those identities." 176
Identification also may engender internalization of, and adherence to, group values and norms and homogeneity in
attitudes and behavior. Just as the social classification of others engenders stereotypical perceptions of them, so too
does the classification of oneself and subsequent identification engender the attribution of prototypical
characteristics to oneself... This self-stereotyping amounts to depersonalization of the self (i.e., the individual is seen
to exemplify the group), and it increases the perceived similarity with other group members and the likelihood of
conformity to group norms. 177 "The self-stereotyping occasioned by psychological grouping causes one to expect
attitudinal and perceptual agreement with group members, such that disagreement triggers doubt and, in turn,
attitudinal/perceptual change." 178 A change in identity can lead to a change in political behavior.
     [*783] Unfortunately community service has often been used as an effective means for encouraging political
docility to government authoritarianism; it makes some sense to control a population by using carefully supervised,
simple, time-consuming, labor-intensive activities that yield easily measurable results. 180 Authoritarians encourage
populations of mixed demographic groups, because the internal differences reduce the risk of an effective challenge
by the population to the central authority. 181 The "doomsday" scenario of government overreaching would
contemplate the possibility of the National Service Corps becoming a standing domestic military force that requires
all young men and women to engage in law enforcement and domestic peace-keeping missions. 182 Local school
programs that increasingly engulf the entire life experience of students 183 can be linked to the long-term evolution
of national service, a process that is already beginning to occur even at the elementary school level 184 through
explicit design. 185 [*784] In addition to the government-funded mass socialization 186 of voters and future voters,
there may also eventually be problems related to the unethical political use of Corps information databases for
advantage in political campaigns. 187 Additionally, campaign finance and/or influence-peddling issues may arise in
conjunction with how Corps resources are deployed to serve particular special interest groups and/or strategic
demographic/geographic political constituencies. 188 In the hands of an unscrupulous politician, the Corps could
eventually become a very potent tool for accomplishing illegitimate purposes.

Sherraden et al, 02 (Michael, Director of the Center for Social Development, Working Paper Limitations of Civic
Service: Critical Perspectives, July,

According to a study of the etymology and historical significance of the word “service” in Greek, Latin, Japanese,
Swahili, Chinese, and Sanskrit, service has historically referred to helpful actions of individuals in relation to others
(Menon, Moore, and Sherraden, 2002). These actions were considered not only as self-sacrifice but also as a duty
and a way of showing loyalty or devotion to the state or to a higher being. In ancient Greece and Rome, for
example, male citizens fulfilled their obligation to the state through military service. Buddhist principles of
helping others as a bridge to the next life strongly influenced Japanese and Chinese cultures. Service was a way of
ensuring one’s salvation or securing favors from the government, and as such benefited the server as well as the

Sherraden et al, 02 (Michael, Director of the Center for Social Development, Working Paper Limitations of Civic
Service: Critical Perspectives, July,

Also, a number of critics suggest that moving service from the private to the public realm automatically transforms
its purposes and goals to a political agenda (critics include Friedman, Chapman, Walter Oi, and Bandow, as cited in
Evers, 1990). Said (paraphrasing Gramsci, 1978) distinguishes between civil society’s voluntary, reciprocal
relationships, and political society’s coercive, hierarchical ones. According to Said, cultural practices that are used
by government and thus for political purposes, automatically lose their consensual nature. This is what Gramsci
(1971) referred to as hegemony—the process by which subordinate groups or individuals internalize a dominant
understanding of the world, which blocks their own conception and prevents them from acting to improve their

Bandow, 93 (Doug, senior fellow at CATO, “National Service: Utopias Revisited”, Cato Policy Analysis No. 190,

National service has long been a favorite utopian theme. Earlier this century, William James wrote of the need for a
"moral equivalent of war," which would require all young men to work for the community. In succeeding decades, a
host of philosophers, policy analysts, and politicians offered their proposals for national service. Now President
Clinton suggests allowing perhaps 150,000 or so people to work off student loans through government service.
The scheme has a certain superficial appeal, but at base it assumes that citizens are responsible, not to each other,
but to the state. Moreover, advocates of national service seem to believe that "public" service, such as shelving
books in a library, is inherently better than "private" service, such as shelving books in a bookstore. Still,
proponents of national service rightly point to the problem of an entitlement mentality, in this case the idea that
students have a right to a taxpayer-paid education. The solution, however, is not to say that people are entitled to an
education as long as they work for the government for a year or two, but to eliminate the undeserved subsidy.
Imagine the bureaucracy necessary to decide which jobs are "service," sort through labor union objections to "unfair
competition," match thousands of participants with individual posts, and monitor the quality of people's work. The
incredible fraud, misuse, and waste endemic to other so-called public service programs hardly augur well for yet
another, even larger, federal effort at social engineering.
Leighninger, 04 (Matt, Senior Associate at the Study Circles Resource Center, “The Seven Deadly Citizens:
Moving From Civic Stereotypes to Well-Rounded Citizenship”, The Good Society, v. 13 n. 2, project muse)

The Virtuous Volunteer Many of those who reject Putnam’s dim view of public life tout the enduring appeal of
volunteerism as a sign that Americans still care about their communities. Among them is President Bush, who has
followed his father’s lead and made volunteerism a cornerstone of his domestic agenda. In advocat-ing his new
USAFreedom Corps and Citizen Corps, Bush has used dramatic language about citizenship. The president and his advisors feel
that increasing volunteerism, especially through faith-based initiatives, will cause Americans to rethink their pub- lic roles. “America needs more than taxpayers, spectators and occasional
voters,” said Bush. “America needs full-time citi- zens.”6 Like the statistics about membership in clubs and organiza- tions, the question of whether Americans are volunteering more often is a
                           it isn’t clear whether increased volunteerism will repair the citizen-govern-ment
subject of some debate.7Even if they are,
relationship or revitalize public life. In fact, most of the rhetoric used to promote this stereotype describes
volunteering as altruistic and apolitical, rather than a way of solving public problems. This may be the wrong
language to use, since it down-plays the capacity of citizens to make an impact on big issues through their own
effort and ideas. It also casts volunteerism as a solitary activity with purely personal benefits — we should do it
because it will make us feel good. For most people, good feelings are probably not enough; organizers must show convincingly that the volun- teering opportunity is part
of a larger effort that can make a real difference.

Segal, 95 (Eli, CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Federal News Service, 6/7, lexis)

The right direction is clear when we keep in mind what national service is and what it is not. National service is
not: - Anti-volunteer: Surely the nation's best charities are the best judges of that. They've seen that AmeriCorps
members actually increase the number and effectiveness of unpaid volunteers.


“I turn ‘em away,” said one program manager. “I just can’t handle any more.” This reluctance to take on more
volunteers is based primarily on the capacity of the organization to effective- ly deploy more volunteer labor. In this
environment, we run a risk of overselling volunteer opportunities and then turning people away when they heed the
call. In order to accommodate more volunteers, program managers say they need more organiza- tional capacity—
more professional staff, more funding, more infrastructure. Of the nine pro- grams that stated they do in fact need
more volunteers, their needs are specific in terms of scheduling and skills. The key issue is having the capacity to
incorporate volunteer labor effectively so that neither the organization nor the volunteer is wasting time. Several
programs we interviewed provided examples of the specific nature of their volunteer needs which may not be met
by a general call to service. The Food Bank of the Community Action Partnership of Orange County and Shanti, an
organization providing services to peo- ple with life-threatening illness, both report a need for daytime volunteers.
Both have enough volunteers for evenings and weekends but are challenged to find people who have time to give
during business hours. Think Together, an after school program in Santa Ana, California, relies on many college
students to tutor school children. During the summers and holidays when students travel or go home and are not
available, the program needs one hundred short- term volunteers. The program’s recruitment challenge is to fill a
recurring but limited need that has specific training and scheduling requirements. Several managers explained that
their programs require volunteers to attend training courses that range from twenty to fifty hours prior to starting
volunteer work. The best time to recruit and bring on new volunteers is around the training schedule. These
program man- agers are NOT able to incorporate volunteers at any given moment of the year and therefore do not
find large-scale calls to service helpful in their recruitment efforts.


A new development in the last decade has been the arrival of AmeriCorps members on the community service
scene. AmeriCorps members receive small stipends and a post-service educational benefit in exchange for one to
two years of full- or part-time intensive service in a community agency or collaborative project. These stipended
national service members join SeniorCorps volunteers and the older but much smaller corps of VISTA (Volunteers
In Service to America) members who have been working with grass roots community organi- zations since the
1960’s.In addition, there is new interest in college work-study placements which for years have provided
community nonprofits with low-cost or no-cost labor while enriching thousands of college students’ education with
a community service experience. Some organizations have begun to offset the instability of their increasingly casual
volunteer pool by bringing in national service members from AmeriCorps, VISTA, or SeniorCorps. Some
volunteer programs are also benefiting from consistent support provided by college students in the federally funded
community work-study program. One program manager we interviewed credited the federal work-study program
for helping him handle the flow of new volunteers.The college work-study volunteers “create stability” in the
program’s home- work center,said the manager,“because they spend far more time in the center” than the other
volunteers. At this important juncture in our civic history,we have the opportunity to combine the energy and
efforts of traditional volunteers with the energy and efforts of stipended volunteers who are recruited and trained
through federally-funded national service and college work-study programs. When taken together, these efforts can
be mutually reinforcing and maximize the value of each in the enterprise of solving important human and social

Leighninger, 04 (Matt, Senior Associate at the Study Circles Resource Center, “The Seven Deadly Citizens:
Moving From Civic Stereotypes to Well-Rounded Citizenship”, The Good Society, v. 13 n. 2, project muse)

American democracy seems to be going through a painful transition process. The symptoms of this shift include
declining voter turnout, increasing mistrust of government, and con- tentious public meetings. Decisions over land
use and the siting of public facilities are increasingly mired in lawsuits and “not in my backyard” arguments.
Scandals involving the police, and other conflicts between residents and public employees, have become more
common and more destructive. These are not the death throes of democracy; our political system has been through
many transitions, and it will continue to evolve as new crises and new conditions arise. The signs of the current
shift can now be seen at the local level, where many community leaders are reaching out to citizens, trying to
involve them in spe-cific aspects of the political process. Civic experts at foundations and universities are
encouraging these efforts by presenting visions of a revitalized American democracy, in which citizens and
government have a more constructive relationship than they do today. Many of these visions and initiatives fail
because they do not provide holistic, realistic roles for citizens to play. They rely on one motivation for people to
participate — one of seven limited definitions of citizenship — rather than providing different incentives which
will appeal to different kinds of people. So cit-izen involvement efforts often falter because they are conducted on a
piecemeal basis, and visions of a revitalized democracy seem utopian because they are based on far-fetched notions
of what people are willing to do. The most successful civic engagement efforts seem to be the ones which embrace
a more well-rounded sense of citizenship. When community leaders put themselves in the shoes of the peo- ple
they are trying to recruit, and recognize the variety of skills and motivations citizens bring to public life, they begin
to real-ize the dangers of the seven civic stereotypes. Some of these leaders have pioneered a new set of strategies
and principles, a more inclusive approach which is sometimes known as “demo- cratic organizing.” These projects
suggest that the next wave of democratic reforms will be built around the day-to-day interests, concerns, and talents
of ordinary citizens, rather than the imme- diate needs of political professionals or the far-off dreams of political
Etzioni, director of the Insititute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington
University, 2004 “The Common Good”, Polity Press Ltd. p. 25-26
So far, I have made the argument that communities (and the particularistic obligations they entail) are essential for human constitution, for our ability to function as full human beings and
as persons oriented by a particular identity. Next, I advance the argument that communities help make us into better people than we would be otherwise. Particularism nurtures free agency
and universalism     Communities (when thick but not excessive) help make us relatively free agents and rational beings and can help us
to live up to universal obligations. As Erich Fromm put it in his Escape from Freedom, and as numerous studies of behavior in crowds have shown, beginning
with Le Bon, isolated people tend to be irrational, impulsive, and open to demagogical appeals and totalitarian movements.53 One
could argue that these movements have risen only in societies and periods in which social integration has been greatly weakened.54 In contrast, as Tocqueville and the enormous literature
on civil society holds, people well woven into communities (including families and voluntary associations) are able to resist pressures by governments
and the seductive appeal of demagogues. Moreover, community members are much more likely to have the psychological
integrity and fortitude required to be able to engage in reasoned deliberations, make rational choices, act on judgment
rather than on impulse, and behave as relatively free agents. (I write "relatively" because even under ideal social conditions people can only approximate the liberal
ideal, and not very closely, but they certainly cannot do so in the absence of particularistic relations.) Liberals fear that communities inherently oppress individuality, as
they often did in earlier periods and still do in some parts of the., world . This fear is justified in reference to excessively thick and authoritarian
communities, which existed mainly in earlier periods | or in non-liberal societies, although even relatively thin communities tend to restrict the individuality of their members to
some extent. Nonetheless, liberalism itself is dependent on the kind of persons found in communities. David B. Wong adds that to learn to be
duty-bound and to act universally, we first must have relationships of trust with others (i.e., particularistic relations).55 We are not born with universal obligations; they must be taught. We
acquire respect for them from parents, educators, religious figures, spiritual leaders, or heads of social movements - all people with whom we have an intense particularistic involvement.
All this is especially evident when we consider our condition as children. Without those who cared for us, we would not have developed into "individuals," but would crawl on all fours and
bark, inarticulate and aggressive, snarling at each other.56 Even as mature adults, we require continued bonding with others to sustain our values in general, our universal commitments

Adams – Lecturer at the University of Maryland's Graduate School of Public Affairs – 1993 (Bruce, “Building
Healthy Commnities”,

Taking Responsibility and Building Trust As citizens, we should not duck responsibility for this state of affairs.
As Pogo said: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Our politicians wouldn’t use negative tactics if they
didn’t work so well. Who among us, to take another example, given just a few minutes before rushing off to
work in the morning would read the analysis of the governor’s latest welfare plan rather than the story of the
mayor’s dalliance? The stories our media give us might not be what we need, but they are very often what we
want. A. Barlett Giamatti, as President of Yale University, addressed our responsibility as citizens in his essay
“Power, Politics and a Sense of History.” “If a society assumes its politicians are venal, stupid or self-serving, it
will attract to its public life as an on-going selffulfilling prophecy the greedy, the knavish and the dim.” Or, as
Adlai Stevenson put it: “Your public servants serve you right.” Our politics is not working better for people and
our communities are not healthier because we aren’t working hard enough at it, and aren’t taking enough
personal responsibility for it. We don’t devote much attention to our civic lives. John Parr, President of the
National Civic League, points out that reformers have traditionally focused on two legs of our democratic
society—the government and the private market. The reformer’s main task has been to make the government leg
perform better. Now, Parr explains, we know it is not sufficient to focus on government reform. United States
Senator Bill Bradley, in a recent presentation to the National Civic League on the deterioration of our civil
society, described a three-legged stool where the private market leg and the government leg are longer than the
civic leg. The stool is not stable. It is our responsibility as citizens to strengthen the civic capacity of our
communities and lengthen the civic leg.
                    AMERICORPS SPECIFIC
Wofford and Waldman 96 (Harris, CEO of the Corporation for National Service, and Steven, his senior advisor for
policy, “Habitat for Conservative Values,” Policy Review, September/October,

One independent study has found that each AmeriCorps member has "leveraged" 12 unstipended volunteers. It was
a recognition that volunteer groups need a cadre of full-time people to organize volunteers that led George Romney
to refer to full-time stipended service and unpaid volunteers as the "twin engines of service."                   Even if one
accepts the idea that volunteers need to be organized, why not just give the money to the nonprofit to hire its own
full-time staff person? Because charities are quite capable of becoming bureaucratic. We need an infusion of people
who plan to work only a year or two and have not, therefore, developed a careerist mindset. Besides, AmeriCorps
members are much cheaper than full-time staff. Consider what AmeriCorps members have accomplished in rural, impoverished Simpson County,
Kentucky. Over nine months of service in 1995, 122 second-graders served by 25 AmeriCorps members saw their reading comprehension scores improve by more
than three grade levels. Thirty-seven percent improved by four or more grade levels. The reasons for success are quite simple. AmeriCorps volunteers can develop
intense, one-on-one tutoring relationships and become familiar with the academic and emotional problems of the child. Just as important, AmeriCorps members visit
each student's home every other week to show parents their child's classroom materials and suggest ways for them to help. Parental involvement has increased
                                                                                        the nonprofits that use
dramatically. Would this have happened if the federal government had given the grant to the state education agency? Simply put,
AmeriCorps members can provide services more efficiently, humanely, and cost-effectively than government can.>

Wofford and Segal, 95 (Harris and Eli, CEO and Former CEO of the Corporation for National Service, FDCH
Congressional Testimony, 10/17, lexis)

AmeriCorps members were exceptionally effective in attracting, supervising and working alongside of traditional,
uncompensated volunteers. We cite some examples above-, but the numbers are frequently staggering: At the
Habitat site in Miami, for example, fewer than 25 AmeriCorps Members were the nucleus of an effort that included
over 5,000 traditional volunteers. The result? More than 90 new homes for working families. Another example from a program headquartered in nearby Maryland: In the
three sites of AmeriCorps' Magic Me, 23 members were responsible for a service program that involved over 3,000 unpaid participants, from troubled middle school students to nursing home
     These examples of volunteer leveraging are impressive--but not unique. in program after program,
AmeriCorps Members are bring in more volunteers, giving them the training and supervision to be truly successful,
and keeping home construction on schedule or making sure children get their tutoring every day and so on. That's tens millions on dollars of uncounted matching resources.

McCain 01 (John, Arizona Senator, “Putting the “National” in National Service,” Washington Monthly, October,

Most AmeriCorps funding is in the hands of state governors, who give it to their National and Community Service
Commissions, who in turn make grants to local nonprofits, who then recruit and hire AmeriCorps members. The
vast majority of AmeriCorps members are thus "detailed" to work for organizations like Habitat for Humanity, the
Red Cross, or Big Brothers/Big Sisters. They become, in effect, full-time, paid staff members of these often-
understaffed organizations. Rather than elbowing out other volunteers, as many of us feared, AmeriCorps members
are typically put to work recruiting, training, and supervising other volunteers. For instance, most of the more than
500 AmeriCorps members who work for Habitat for Humanity spend less time swinging hammers themselves than
making sure that hammers, nails, and drywall are at the worksite when the volunteers arrive. They then teach the
volunteers the basic skills of how to hang drywall. As a result, studies show that each AmeriCorps member
generates, on average, nine additional volunteers. The ability to provide skilled and motivated manpower to other
organizations is what makes AmeriCorps so effective. But it also creates a problem. AmeriCorps members often take on the identity of the organizations
they're assigned to. In the process, they often lose any sense of being part of a larger national service enterprise, if they ever had it at all. Indeed, staffers at nonprofit groups sometimes call
AmeriCorps headquarters looking for support for their organizations, only to find out that their own salaries are being paid by AmeriCorps. It's no wonder most Americans say they have never
heard of the program. And a program few have heard of will obviously not be able to inspire a new ethic of national service.
                    AMERICORPS SPECIFIC
Kanter 04 (Rosabeth, Harvard Business School Professor, “Save AmeriCorps from Budget Cuts,” May 6,

While Americans worry about our young people in military service in Iraq, we should spare a worry for another
army of young people, the ones engaged in civilian service in America. Their ability to serve is in danger. The
60,000-plus members of AmeriCorps are fighting a different kind of war -- against illiteracy, AIDS or school
dropouts. Dedicating at least a year to their nation, they don uniforms and report to bases in inner-city schools,
homeless shelters or community health clinics. They build playgrounds, helping ensure peace on city streets through
constructive alternatives to drugs and violence. Like their military counterparts, some young people find a ticket to
a better life through AmeriCorps, gaining skills and scholarships. Others expand their worldviews and become
leaders of diverse groups spanning races and backgrounds. Compared to the widely known Peace Corps, AmeriCorps is not yet a household name, but its
numbers are impressive. About 170,000 people have served in the Peace Corps over its 43-year life; nearly twice that number have served in AmeriCorps in just 10 years. This year, about 7,500
Americans work abroad in the Peace Corps, but more than 60,000 serve domestically in AmeriCorps. The cost per Peace Corps member is $40,886; for AmeriCorps is only $12,400, according to
analyses by the National Service Alumni Network. Serving the country Because of benefits to both communities and young people, AmeriCorps enjoys unusual bipartisan support. The idea was
seeded in the first Bush administration through the Commission on National Service. It blossomed in the Clinton administration, which launched AmeriCorps. Initial critics such as Republican
U.S. Sens. John McCain and Rick Santorum have become staunch supporters. The current President Bush has promised expansion as part of his call for every American to serve the country.
Now  the sometimes unsung heroes of AmeriCorps need help. Proposed changes in federal rules threaten to undermine
the very things that make AmeriCorps effective. Under the banner of fiscal accountability (serious mistakes forced
out the former Bush-appointed head of the Corporation for National Service), some Republicans in Congress are
trying to weaken AmeriCorps. These changes threaten to turn national service into casual volunteering -- the
equivalent of eliminating a full-time, highly trained military led by career professionals and expecting an evenings-
and-weekends National Guard to handle national defense. AmeriCorps members, like the soldiers in our all-
volunteer army, are ''volunteers'' only in the sense that no one forces them to join. They serve as full-time workers
performing direct service to communities, including organizing community-service events. Members can afford to
dedicate themselves to service regardless of financial situation because AmeriCorps provides a living allowance,
healthcare, child-care benefits and, at the end, an education award. But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay wants
to reduce federal expenditures on these benefits. That could make national service a luxury for the affluent -- not
an expression of democracy. Federal funding has helped service programs flying the AmeriCorps flag create
innovative solutions to community problems. Innovations take time and investment to develop and spread. Sen.
Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., calls this ``the highest and best use of taxpayer dollars.'' But DeLay proposes a time limit
and ceiling for federal funding. This would punish the most successful models and prevent their expansion. Imagine
dividing the military into hundreds of small, new organizations instead of four big branches; would national defense
still be strong? Fragmented national service would lack impact.
Widespread backing
    According to, strong support for AmeriCorps has been voiced by 79 U.S. senators, 233 representatives, 44 governors, 148 mayors, 190 college and university
  presidents, 1,170 community organizations and numerous CEOs of corporations that sponsor AmeriCorps programs. But the very fact of widespread backing has been twisted to justify cuts.
 DeLay implies that if private-sector groups are so enamored of strong AmeriCorps programs, they should pay for more of their work. Insisting that private companies fund public service is like
                                                                       AmeriCorps is not broken, but some promises
 requiring corporate sponsorship of Army tanks, Navy ships or Marine outfits. Ralph Lauren Green Berets, anyone?
      could be. The White House should stop the process of gutting the civilian service that Bush says he supports.

This word document was downloaded from the website:, please remain this
                         link information when you reproduce , copy, or use it.
                        <a href=''>word documents</a>

Shared By: